Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
No, Ed is NOT right. Do you think Dugway was the only military lab reverse-engineering the anthrax?
OBVIOUSLY the FBI reverse engineered it - or tried to. That’s the most basic thing that they would ever do. To imagine that they simply said to a few labs - “We’re not telling you details about this powder, but just try to see what you can make and we’ll see it matches” is ridiculous.
There were multiple stories that this was being done - and Mason and Mueller are DIRECTLY quoted confirming it.
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/fbisecretlyrecreate.html
Source: Washington Post, November 2, 2002.
FBI Secretly Trying to Re-Create Anthrax From Mail Attacks
By Dan Eggen and Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writers
FBI investigators and federal scientists have been secretly working for months to replicate the type of anthrax used in last year’s deadly mail attacks, as part of a previously undisclosed strategy designed to determine precisely how the spores were manufactured, officials said yesterday.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who revealed the experiments in remarks to reporters here, said that using such “reverse engineering” could help investigators narrow the list of possible suspects.
“We’re replicating the way or ways it might be manufactured, but it is not an easy task,” Mueller said. “We are going into new territory in some areas.”
I repeat: When you have two different "experts" saying two different things, you need to determine which "expert" is making scientific sense. You can't just mindlessly believe the "expert" who says something that you can twist and distort to fit your beliefs.
The FBI obviously contracted someone to truly reverse engineer the powder.
If they did, it wasn't Dugway. And according to Dugway, you have to know exactly how the spores were made if you want to "reverse engineer" them.
The only person who would know that is the person who made the attack anthrax. Do you believe the FBI contracted with him (or her) to "reverse engineer" the anthrax powder?
No Ed, to reverse engineer something you read the lab reports on the analysis of the spores.
Then you use that knowledge to reverse engineer the powder or replicate the powder.
I can understand why you don’t like the fact that Mason admitted it had failed, and even that Mueller said it was being attempted in the first place. Because if the spores don’t contain additives - what exactly is there to “reverse engineer”?
I can also understand why you dislike the leaked Detrick email - how can one sample of “pure spores” be more similar to another sample of “pure spores”? Unless there are additives present to differentiate them?
No, TrebelRebel, that results in ONE way to get something SIMILAR to the object in question.
how can one sample of “pure spores” be more similar to another sample of “pure spores”? Unless there are additives present to differentiate them?
A very good question. (Finally!!!)
If you make "pure spores" using water obtained from the Southwest and more "pure spores" using water obtained from the Northeast, they will both be "pure spores" but they will NOT be identical. There will be water isotope differences.
If you make "pure spores" using one brand of nutrient and if you make more "pure spores" using another brand of nutrient, they will both be "pure spores" but they will NOT be identical. There will be chemical differences.
The objective of making these different types of "pure spores" with all different types of manufacturing methods is two fold: (#1) To see which one is CLOSEST to the attack anthrax. (#2) To see which processes can be ruled out as not producing something similar. That provides EVIDENCE to be used in court.
In court they have to say: "The attack spores were made in the Northeast; the suspect works in the Northeast. The attack spores were made with Brand-X nutrients; the suspect uses Brand-X nutrients. The bacteria for the attack spores were grown in a Brand-Y fermenter; the suspect uses a Brand-Y fermenter. Etc. Etc.
And then the jury is told: The chances of another scientist using all these same processes in the same area are one in ten thousand, which happens to be the number of scientists in that area. So, there is only one scientist in that area who could have made the attack anthrax.
I wonder if that is some kind of record.
You can try to fantasize your way out of this. I can guarantee you that when Mason said they had failed it was not because the isotope ratios of C, O and H didn’t exactly match. The isotope studies are a total waste of time anyway -a conviction could never be made on that basis alone - since a lab in Arizona could easily have used commercial laboratory water that orginated in the Northeast - it proves nothing.
“And then the jury is told: The chances of another scientist using all these same processes in the same area are one in ten thousand, which happens to be the number of scientists in that area. So, there is only one scientist in that area who could have made the attack anthrax.”
That’s about ten thousand times more ridiculous than the “lead in bullets” scandal.
Dwight Adams doesn’t exactly come across too well in this video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml
Aside from eyewitness testimony, some of the most believable evidence presented in criminal cases in the United States comes from the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Va. Part of its job is to test and analyze everything from ballistics to DNA for state and local prosecutors around the country, introducing scientific credibility to often murky cases.
But a six-month investigation by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post shows that there are hundreds of defendants imprisoned around the country who were convicted with the help of a now discredited forensic tool, and that the FBI never notified them, their lawyers, or the courts, that the their cases may have been affected by faulty testimony.
The science, called bullet lead analysis, was used by the FBI for 40 years in thousands of cases, and some of the people it helped put in jail may be innocent.
As usual, you are not paying attention. I described how they are using MANY tests to differentiate between spore preparations. So, no one is even going to try to do it on one test alone.
You clearly have no comprehension of Rules of Evidence or the way the FBI builds a case.
What is your fantasy explanation for why they used all those different ways to create spores? Do you believe they just did it for fun?
So, what are you saying? Are you saying that no matter what the FBI tries to prove, you will not believe it?
Are you trying to say that because the FBI made a mistake, they can never be trusted ever again?
Or are you just mindlessly venting your hatred for the FBI the same way you vent your hatreds for Meselson and Alibek?
They probably used milling versus spray drying, how the spores were dried would likely leave tell-tale features - damage to the surface etc.
But the most obvious explanation for not being able to reproduce the spores afer 2 years is that the processing of something akin to 1% by weight of fumed aerosil giving total monlayer spore coverage is tricky.
You’ve seen pictues of silica coated spores in Microbial Forensics - every sample looks different - and that’s just a few examples. There is a near infinte number of different looking spore preparations as you vary just 3 parameters - % silica, size of silica primary particles and dispersion, and process conditions. It wouldn’t be hard to believe that after 2 years one couldn’t get a preparation that looked exactly the same.
Of course, if you believe all the work that went into putting these pictures and discussions into Microbial Forensics by the 20 or so authors involved (they called them “weaponized simulants”) was just to prove that it was ridiculous to coat spores with silica (your imagined fantasy) - then it’s not fruitful for you to consider and you should stick to your isotope fantasy.
I’m just demonstrating that even if the FBI didn’t have an atrocious track record with faulty forensic evidence principles, it would still be impossible to use isotope evidence to convict. There are too many variables - at least a dozen different chemicals are used in fermentation - all could be from dozens of sources. The water itself could be from anywhere, used anywhere.
But the point is - the FBI’s credibility barrier for forensics is so high, that they might as well forget it. And, yes, I AM saying that if the FBI made one mistake, it will not take much in court to convince a jury that there is soemthing amiss with their methods. It’s all a matter of record.
It also wouldn't be hard to believe that after six years they didn't get TWENTY preparations that LOOKED exactly the same -- but which had very small differences detectable only by specialized equipment.
You still aren't answering the basic question: If they DID "reverse engineer" the attack anthrax perfectly, of what value would it be?
The basic question to be answered is this - how much effort was required to reverse engineer the powder - how much money and resources? Is it feasible for this to have been done privately?
Of course the other obvious question is - why did the Dugway preparation without silica “fly like a penguin”? The answer is obvious - it contained no silica. But it should trouble you greatly surely - after all you claim silica isn’t needed to make a powder with the same aerosol properites as the attack anthrax.
Again - that seems obvious - since we know Dugway used silica coated anthrax to simulate the behavior of the attack anthrax - in their own study that is - not what they made for the FBI without silica.
I suppose that when you read the Fox News email you imagine that when the Detrick scientist wrote “He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]” that means “the stuff [name redacted] made had the same isotope ratios as the attack anthrax”.
I’m being flip - of course you cannot possibly truly imagine that to be the case - although you may use that argument to hide behind what it really means.
What is really means, of course, is that the powder made by[name redacted] looked and acted the closest to the attack powder. Which means it would form an aerosol and that it’s laboratory analysis report matched the attack spores. And, yes, that means additives - it means it matched the same additive composition. That is the only reasonable explanation.
If you have to distort the facts to make an argument, it just proves that you don't have a valid argument.
Isotope evidence would just be ONE type of evidence. They'd use MANY other types of evidence to prove that the anthrax came from a specific person in a specific lab.
Beyond the evidence from microbial forensics, they'd also use evidence that the suspect was in New Jersey at the time of the attacks, that he had access to a lab at the time of the attacks, that he had no alibi for the times of the attacks, that he had the technical knowhow to make the anthrax, that he had access to the Ames strain, and that he had a motive for sending the letters, etc.
To suggest that the FBI is going to build their entire case on one piece of circumstantial evidence is just mindless arguing for the sake of arguing.
And, yes, I AM saying that if the FBI made one mistake, it will not take much in court to convince a jury that there is soemthing amiss with their methods. It’s all a matter of record.
So, what is it you want them to do? To give up so that you can continue to argue that they are worthless?
You hunt for one situation which shows they didn't do things correctly. How many SUCCESSFUL cases have the had? Or don't you want to acknowledge that they EVER had a successful case because in your mind people are either infallable or they're "baffoons"?
I've got news for you: People on juries do not typically believe that humans are either infallable or they're "baffoons." And the judge will tell them that it is their job to view the FACTS of the case. The fact that the FBI labs made some error on some other kind of evidence in some other kind of case probably wouldn't even be admissible. If it is admissible, the judge will tell the jury that it does NOT mean that the evidence in the current case is invalid in any way.
It’s way too late for all of that. Imagine the Fox News story is correct - what if they really have narrowed it down to 4 suspects connected with Detrick? What if they have evidence that Detrick’s Mr Redacted really did make an absolutely identical powder at Detrick a year before the attacks? What is they cannot find a single spore at his home or any other place he had ever been outside Detrick? Does anyone remember where Mr Redacted was one night 6 1/2 years ago when the letters were posted?
I have news for you - they can’t convict him - there’s no way they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt he sent the stuff - unless they have video of him taking it out the classified safe and not putting it back - which I doubt because they would have arrested him by now.
No spores - no conviction.
NO! The BASIC question comes BEFORE those questions. The BASIC question is: WHY should they try to reverse engineer it in the first place?
Of course the other obvious question is - why did the Dugway preparation without silica “fly like a penguin”?
The answer is also obvious: It was made in a way that any scientist would KNOW before even making it that would "fly like a penguin" because it was just one method of making anthrax powders from MANY that they would perform to get samples for testing.
I'd say the better question is: Why does that ONE preparation mean so much to you when you KNOW they made MANY MANY MANY types of preparations? Is it because you can take the quote out of context and make a mindless argument with it?
you claim silica isn’t needed to make a powder with the same aerosol properites as the attack anthrax.
I don't just claim it, that's what the FACTS say. The attack anthrax was neither coated with silica nor mixed with silica in any way visible under a TEM or SEM.
You may fantasize that some kind of invisible silica coating was applied, but that would be just an absurd fantasy.
we know Dugway used silica coated anthrax to simulate the behavior of the attack anthrax
FALSE! The CDC used silica coated anthrax from Dugway to simulate the behavior of what they believed the attack anthrax looked like based upon newspaper stories they'd read.
No, Duway/CDC used silica coated anthrax to simulate the attack anthrax. They reference Beecher’s paper - but they ignore his famous paragraph. If they believed Beecher they would have used anthrax without additives - instead they used COATED anthrax. Of course, they’re experiences making “penguin spores” without silica for the FBI’s failed experiment may also have helped them with that one.
It says it clearly in their paper:
In the anthrax attack of 2001, some of the material was believed to be in a “fluidized” form (defined here as having fumed silica added). In order to simulate the aerosol-deposited nature of the anthrax biowarfare agent on surfaces, a two part study was initiated. The present work was part of a larger study to investigate surface sampling techniques and analytical techniques. The focus of the work presented here was to develop a system to prepare multiple samples in a chamber, which allowed predictable concentrations of aerosolized spores (closely simulating the type of spores used in the actual attack) to settle on at least two types of surfaces and at concentrations that tested the limits of detection of the sampling and analytical methods.
Imagine the Fox News story is a bunch of crap. Instead, consider that the FBI identified the culprit in December of 2001, they collected scientific evidence back then, but they didn't have enough of the right kind of scientific evidence to make an arrest -- particularly after the idiotic conspiracy theorists began pointing at Dr. Hatfill. So, the FBI arranged for the formation of a Working Group to formalize the new science of Microbial Forensics. And they arranged for scientists from any areas to help develop statistical and scientific evidence that they can use in court to validate the scientific evidence they've had for six years and which they need for a conviction. And consider that they also need a moot court to weigh all the legal factors before they make an arrest. And consider, too, that they need a DOJ prosecutor who is willing to take the case to court even though he or she may not be absolutely certain of a conviction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.